What does the First Ammendment mean?

[Redleg]

Not following you here Red. How does this relates to the definition of apology of crime, as this was the point of that paragraph.

Your concept of apologizing for a crime does not fit into the discussion. One can always apologize for their actions.

I took that as your personal opinion, maybe I was wrong.

If you call for violence - you are not protected under Freedom of Speech, the state reserves the right to insure the general welfare of the people.

Indeed one must understand it, even when I only made reference to a certain interpretation of it, of people who understand it. To me a well regulated militia could mean a lot of things, as a well regulated militia plus "to secure the freedom of the state", the following "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." only confuses me further. I'm making my own interpretation now, but I believe it's consistent with a protection provided to the people against the power of the state, not to protect it, maybe state was used the same as nation.

Again your missing the point of the 2nd Ammendment. Its a two part sentence - each part is related but independent of each other.

I'm not answering to you in regards to this particular case, only to what freedom of speech means, and particulary in the first amendment. The interpretation above (yours) does not surge from the text of the amendment itself, since it makes no exceptions, so I assume you're extracting it from other texts or making your own opinions. The first amendment, by itself, makes no exception whatsoever to the principle. I find many problems with the expression "protected speech", but let's assume it's, from where do you extract what's a protected or what isn't, do you find it correct?

Actually I take my opinion from studying the constitution and several case laws that show that Freedom of Speech does not allow for a call of violence nor does it protect you from civil responsiblity for your words. Protected speech is any speech that does not advocate violence is the base definition that I have learned from studying the consitution and most of the case law generated from the concept. Then there is the civil application of Freedom of Speech and personal responsiblity for one's own actions.

[Major Robert Dump]

Certain areas in public space during special events etc are deemed as being "free speech zones" in expectation of people exerting "free speech." Protestors or whoever are supposed to stay in these zones, although the zones may not be clearly marked or pointed out to people planning on using "free speech." If a police officer or valid security person tells you to shut up and move away, and you do not, you can be arrested for using "free speech" outside of the "free speech zone."

Had this happened in the White House press room, she would not have been arrested. Had this happened in the 12x12 "free speech zone" in a public park where the dignitaries were speaking, this would not have happened (the zone would have been over a hill and behind some trees, btw).

These laws usually expire after the event, unless we are talking about somewhere that is a parmanent fixture. For Example, the cameras can harass the congress on the Capital steps, but not inside the doors.

I'm not saying I like any of this, its just how it is. Some old lady was arrested at a Bush event a few years ago for leaving the "free speech zone" in a park or something. Hillary Clinton also used it quite liberally, in to changing the setup of the event so cameras would be pointed away from free speech zones if they were to focus on the event, she did it by narrowing the spots for cameras to be placed, a real zoning expert she. Don't know about presidents before them, wasn't paying attention

[Banquo's Ghost]

Interesting. So how does the government create a 'free speech zone'? Is it by presidential dictat, a bill in Congress or by application to local law enforcement?

How long can a 'free speech zone' last? Could one be imposed for months or years under, say, a state of emergency?

Have these zones been tested in the Supreme Court and found to be constitutional? Because they look like the thin end of the wedge.

[Xiahou]

My take: They were free to ask her to leave, and then forcibly remove her and charge her with tresspassing(or something similar) when she didnt comply. The charges listed seem like total nonsense.

She has a right to say what she wants- but they dont have to leave her stay on the Whitehouse lawn to do it.

[Duke of Gloucester]

She has a right to say what she wants- but they dont have to leave her stay on the Whitehouse lawn to do it.

That makes sense. You can say what you like, but you can't necessarily say it where and when you like. Or another way of looking at it: she can be arrested for disrupting a State visit, but not for what she actually said.

[Avicenna]

Free speech is nothing but an illusion. Does the law disallowing you from denying the Holocaust sound like free speech?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Free speech is nothing but an illusion. Does the law disallowing you from denying the Holocaust sound like free speech?

My, aren't we the cynic? As I'm sure you know, freedom brings responsibility. The essence of the thread is how far freedom to speak can be allowed to infringe on other's rights. Some countries have laws like the one you note, because they have concerns about the effects of peddling lies. AFAIK, the US has no such law.

If you think free speech is an illusion, you might want to try speaking your mind in Burma, N Korea, China and a hundred other countries that believe freedom is over-rated.

[Soulforged]

Your concept of apologizing for a crime does not fit into the discussion. One can always apologize for their actions.

And again I tell you: if overthrowing the government or advocating for such action is some sort of crime, then talking about how good will it be is making apology of crime. Or will you disagree with it's very definition? You're right, though, that it's not necessary for the discussion, so let's move on...

If you call for violence - you are not protected under Freedom of Speech, the state reserves the right to insure the general welfare of the people.

Well, then this is your personal opinion then. How does the words of some nutjob or a true leader in the streets threatens the security of the "free state" or it's people?

Again your missing the point of the 2nd Ammendment. Its a two part sentence - each part is related but independent of each other.

You said earlier that this was explained already. If it was in this forums then do you remember where? If it was in another place, I'm sure you know the best links to know it's "true meaning" and you can point me out. Beyond that, I strongly disagree with you, interpretation is not held to a group of words that someone considered to be the best meaning of it, my interpretation could be as good as anyone else, the same goes for any other interpretation.

Actually I take my opinion from studying the constitution and several case laws that show that Freedom of Speech does not allow for a call of violence nor does it protect you from civil responsiblity for your words. Protected speech is any speech that does not advocate violence is the base definition that I have learned from studying the consitution and most of the case law generated from the concept. Then there is the civil application of Freedom of Speech and personal responsiblity for one's own actions.

That's exactly what I meant. Where's that case law? What do you mean by studying the Constitution (this could lead me to believe that you're making your own interpretation)? You see, and I repeat, the interpretation that you made of the 1st amendement cannot be extracted from it abstract for a certain context, I want to know what that context is.

[Redleg]

And again I tell you: if overthrowing the government or advocating for such action is some sort of crime, then talking about how good will it be is making apology of crime. Or will you disagree with it's very definition? You're right, though, that it's not necessary for the discussion, so let's move on...

Apology for crime is not the same concept in which this thread is about. So yes you should move on.

Well, then this is your personal opinion then. How does the words of some nutjob or a true leader in the streets threatens the security of the "free state" or it's people?

Again its opinion based upon reading the constitution and following the case law concerning Free Speech in the United States. One can not advocate violence and then claim protection under the 1st Ammendment. You might want to check it out before continuing the discussion.

You said earlier that this was explained already. If it was in this forums then do you remember where? If it was in another place, I'm sure you know the best links to know it's "true meaning" and you can point me out. Beyond that, I strongly disagree with you, interpretation is not held to a group of words that someone considered to be the best meaning of it, my interpretation could be as good as anyone else, the same goes for any other interpretation.

Try reading some case law on the 2nd Ammendment, its been discussed in this forum before, and one can find it in several other sites - the 2nd Ammendment is a two part sentence. Each part is self sufficent on its own, but together has an express purpose.

That's exactly what I meant. Where's that case law? What do you mean by studying the Constitution (this could lead me to believe that you're making your own interpretation)? You see, and I repeat, the interpretation that you made of the 1st amendement cannot be extracted from it abstract for a certain context, I want to know what that context is.

Read some case law and you will find out. The first site using the term violent speech and the 1st Ammendment.

http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html#C


The research is rather easy - and alreadly written. I am feeling to lazy to educate you on a concept that has alreadly been established.

[Soulforged]

Again its opinion based upon reading the constitution and following the case law concerning Free Speech in the United States. One can not advocate violence and then claim protection under the 1st Ammendment. You might want to check it out before continuing the discussion.

But...do you also share that opinion?

Try reading some case law on the 2nd Ammendment, its been discussed in this forum before, and one can find it in several other sites - the 2nd Ammendment is a two part sentence. Each part is self sufficent on its own, but together has an express purpose.

Since you told me that, how do I get to the older threads? You know the ones that disappeared from the Backroom.

Read some case law and you will find out. The first site using the term violent speech and the 1st Ammendment.

http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html#C


The research is rather easy - and alreadly written. I am feeling to lazy to educate you on a concept that has alreadly been established.

No need to do that, you've already been quite informative, thanks.

From the article:
"Many exceptions to the First Amendment protections have been recognized by the courts, although not without controversy. Courts sometimes justify these exceptions as speech which causes substantial harm to the public, or speech which the Founding Fathers could not have intended to protect, or traditions that have long been part of the common law tradition from England that was the basis of our American legal system." The Courts as usual take a more conservative position, instead of realist one, (many just desitions could be achieved if the Courts only forgot about texts and systems and started using common sense and common opinion) as follows:"How should we weigh the relative importance of these competing social values? How do we balance free speech against racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism which promotes values we despise as a country? against speech which some consider a symptom of the decay of society's traditional values? against speech which directly results in physical injury to another person?"
It establish the exceptions as they were determined by the Courts:
1-Defamation: No problem with this one. The case mentioned at the bottom (Wojnarowicz v. American Family Association, 745 F.Supp. 130 [S.D.N.Y. 1990]) and particulary this expression "reckless disregard for the truth" is used here too as a requirement for defamation.
2-Causing panic: Within the limits that the law stablishes it appears to be reasonable. Only considered within certain circumstances. The case of "The War of the Worlds" of Orson Wells is pretty well known here. However the things that cause panic change with time, thus this exception should change to keep it's pace.
3-"Fighting Words": This isn't so reasonable, but at least it's changing. The responsability should fall on the person who took the action.
4-Incitement to commit a crime: This expression appears to have a broader aplication that the one it has here. This is only acceptable, in my opinion, if one incites another to the commition of a concret criminal situation, not to murder, rape, etc. but to murder a certain person in a certain place, at a certain hour, or group of those factors, like murder a white, etc. To broad and you'll lose your place to talk violently.
5-Sedition(advocating sedition is not sedition!!): And here comes the important one. Again this one doesn't pass without controversy. It doesn't mention any special case on this one, so I suppose there isn't any. The question asked are interesting however, and I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't like Marx or any other literature to be prohibited. This is widely unreasonable to me, I don't accept it even on a minimum grade. But to keep a neutral stance here, let's suppose that in a document someone critics the government, and at the botton he advocates the violent overthrowing of it? Does that qualifies? Anyway, what this doesn't say is what penalty do you receive by making this kind of speech, I suppose this cannot pass from a fine, in fact in the show of Penn&Teller, they once did talk about the violent overthrowing of the government, as an american right, of course advocating it. Were they punished? As I said, though this is now considered to be "unprotected" speech, I think it's too much.
6-Obscenity: Beyond real pics of minors in sexual situations, I wouldn't accept this one, but it appears to be pretty strong there. None of the arguements offered in the article convince me of this one, it appears that some forced causal relationships, as in "fighting words", want to be found just to justify it's ban.
7-Offense: This is wider concept of offense. Unreasonable to me, people who are adults should learn to accept other opinions even when their only purpose is to offend them. Otherwise we'll end transforming non-issues into real issues. However it appears that the recent problem with the caricatures and the muslims, can give a good case to talk about this theory.
8-Establishment of religion: Again unreasonable, but it has been discussed already.

A quotation from John Stuart Mill:" . . the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." An state who calls itself liberal should respect this as the base of it's existence. The concept of sedition as an exception to freedom of speech goes far beyond it's boundaries.

[Redleg]

But...do you also share that opinion?

Advocation of violence against others is consistent with wanting to deny them their civil rights.

Since you told me that, how do I get to the older threads? You know the ones that disappeared from the Backroom.

Ask a moderator - I normally use the search function - but it does not seem to bring up some threads.

No need to do that, you've already been quite informative, thanks.

From the article:
"Many exceptions to the First Amendment protections have been recognized by the courts, although not without controversy. Courts sometimes justify these exceptions as speech which causes substantial harm to the public, or speech which the Founding Fathers could not have intended to protect, or traditions that have long been part of the common law tradition from England that was the basis of our American legal system." The Courts as usual take a more conservative position, instead of realist one, (many just desitions could be achieved if the Courts only forgot about texts and systems and started using common sense and common opinion) as follows:"How should we weigh the relative importance of these competing social values? How do we balance free speech against racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism which promotes values we despise as a country? against speech which some consider a symptom of the decay of society's traditional values? against speech which directly results in physical injury to another person?"
It establish the exceptions as they were determined by the Courts:
1-Defamation: No problem with this one. The case mentioned at the bottom (Wojnarowicz v. American Family Association, 745 F.Supp. 130 [S.D.N.Y. 1990]) and particulary this expression "reckless disregard for the truth" is used here too as a requirement for defamation.
2-Causing panic: Within the limits that the law stablishes it appears to be reasonable. Only considered within certain circumstances. The case of "The War of the Worlds" of Orson Wells is pretty well known here. However the things that cause panic change with time, thus this exception should change to keep it's pace.
3-"Fighting Words": This isn't so reasonable, but at least it's changing. The responsability should fall on the person who took the action.
4-Incitement to commit a crime: This expression appears to have a broader aplication that the one it has here. This is only acceptable, in my opinion, if one incites another to the commition of a concret criminal situation, not to murder, rape, etc. but to murder a certain person in a certain place, at a certain hour, or group of those factors, like murder a white, etc. To broad and you'll lose your place to talk violently.
5-Sedition(advocating sedition is not sedition!!): And here comes the important one. Again this one doesn't pass without controversy. It doesn't mention any special case on this one, so I suppose there isn't any. The question asked are interesting however, and I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't like Marx or any other literature to be prohibited. This is widely unreasonable to me, I don't accept it even on a minimum grade. But to keep a neutral stance here, let's suppose that in a document someone critics the government, and at the botton he advocates the violent overthrowing of it? Does that qualifies? Anyway, what this doesn't say is what penalty do you receive by making this kind of speech, I suppose this cannot pass from a fine, in fact in the show of Penn&Teller, they once did talk about the violent overthrowing of the government, as an american right, of course advocating it. Were they punished? As I said, though this is now considered to be "unprotected" speech, I think it's too much.
6-Obscenity: Beyond real pics of minors in sexual situations, I wouldn't accept this one, but it appears to be pretty strong there. None of the arguements offered in the article convince me of this one, it appears that some forced causal relationships, as in "fighting words", want to be found just to justify it's ban.
7-Offense: This is wider concept of offense. Unreasonable to me, people who are adults should learn to accept other opinions even when their only purpose is to offend them. Otherwise we'll end transforming non-issues into real issues. However it appears that the recent problem with the caricatures and the muslims, can give a good case to talk about this theory.
8-Establishment of religion: Again unreasonable, but it has been discussed already.

A quotation from John Stuart Mill:" . . the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." An state who calls itself liberal should respect this as the base of it's existence. The concept of sedition as an exception to freedom of speech goes far beyond it's boundaries.

The John Stuart Mill quote is consistent with what I have been saying about Free Speech as it relates to the 1st Ammendment in the United States.

[Soulforged]

Advocation of violence against others is consistent with wanting to deny them their civil rights.

Some times it's, sedition, however, is mostly about trying to regain those freedoms, occasionaly when your government believes it can do whatever they want. Now, how can you regain those freedoms if it's not by sedition.

The John Stuart Mill quote is consistent with what I have been saying about Free Speech as it relates to the 1st Ammendment in the United States.

Not at all. Exceptions made by obscenity, sedition, offense and establishment of religion (though the latter has had other aplications and it's expressed on the 1st Amendement text) go far beyond that simple text of the 1st amendment, wich text appears to be limitative as it's written, and way far the idea of liberalism of Stuart Mill.
Believing that words are harmful, in some way, is believing in magic. The words by themselves mean little, that's why it's not sufficient to cause any effect. If it's accompanied by a true intention of sedition, then ask you this, what will you do if suddenly an act or bill is passed and you cannot write your ideas on the internet without been punished...Are you going to talk about sedition? Or are you going to accept it? Again, I understand your point that this is how the positive law is configured in your country, as that was the question of the initial poster. But what the Courts make are interpretations, at some point you should ask yourself if the ones that control your freedoms should be the ones sitted inside the "ivory towers" or you and the rest of the peasants. All this interpretations trace back to the Founding Fathers and their wishes, this kind of resource has been critizied many times because it's moot, it really doesn't mather what three or four (I don't know how many were them in the USA) thought 300 years or more in the past. What it matters is, how can we use it to extract the most just, and why not, liberal, resolution in any given case. So far there's some exceptions made that are not consistent with that idea, many of them anchored on archaic traditions alienated from an ever changing society and culture wich has grown up and doesn't believe in fantasies anymore, like "foul language", or maybe it does...

[Redleg]

Some times it's, sedition, however, is mostly about trying to regain those freedoms, occasionaly when your government believes it can do whatever they want. Now, how can you regain those freedoms if it's not by sedition.

Violence is the term used - if one openly plans violence in the public setting the government can arrest them.

What your are failing to notice is that I am only talking about what the government is allowed to do by the constitution.

If the government has become oppressive to the point that the people are openly speaking of a violent overthrow - the government will act, and in doing so people will be more prone to sedition as their rights are futher eroded by the government.

The people have the right to be governed by the government that best serves their interests - however that means the government must serve the interests of the people. When the two come into conflict - the government will fail in the end.

Not at all. Exceptions made by obscenity, sedition, offense and establishment of religion (though the latter has had other aplications and it's expressed on the 1st Amendement text) go far beyond that simple text of the 1st amendment, wich text appears to be limitative as it's written, and way far the idea of liberalism of Stuart Mill.

Then you do not understand the nature of his quote. Look at it carefully and then look at the words that I use in regards to the 1st Ammendment - they are both consistent with each other.

the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."

Mill is clearly stating that if one speaks of violence the government can rightfully exercise power over that persons will - if that control is to prevent harm to others. Advocating violence falls within the scope of which he speaks.

Believing that words are harmful, in some way, is believing in magic. The words by themselves mean little, that's why it's not sufficient to cause any effect. If it's accompanied by a true intention of sedition, then ask you this, what will you do if suddenly an act or bill is passed and you cannot write your ideas on the internet without been punished...Are you going to talk about sedition? Or are you going to accept it? Again, I understand your point that this is how the positive law is configured in your country, as that was the question of the initial poster. But what the Courts make are interpretations, at some point you should ask yourself if the ones that control your freedoms should be the ones sitted inside the "ivory towers" or you and the rest of the peasants.

Your speaking of several different things - all outside of the orginial aspect of the question. In the United States if the speech is determined to be advocating violence towards others the government has the obligation to prevent the speech and the violence.

If one disagrees with the law - one takes action consistent with peaceful protest against that law. If one feels violence is the only resort left - then one must understand that the govenment will disagree with their postion. This is where the 2nd Ammendment comes in play.

However it does not prevent the government from arresting individuals for sedition.

Your forgetting a part of the Constitution that also tie into the concept of free speech.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

And finally -

All this interpretations trace back to the Founding Fathers and their wishes, this kind of resource has been critizied many times because it's moot, it really doesn't mather what three or four (I don't know how many were them in the USA) thought 300 years or more in the past. What it matters is, how can we use it to extract the most just, and why not, liberal, resolution in any given case. So far there's some exceptions made that are not consistent with that idea, many of them anchored on archaic traditions alienated from an ever changing society and culture wich has grown up and doesn't believe in fantasies anymore, like "foul language", or maybe it does...

You miss the point of constitutional discussions and have resorted to a rant. No point going futher with the discussion when comments such as this come into being.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The key word here is peaceably. No matter what kind of light you shine on what this lady said, calling for the downfall of the President of China is hardly peaceful.

There are political things to consider as well. Like it or not, the US needs good relations with China to avoid world war three. When this lady says "Your time is running out," and the US were to let her go, I doubt that Hu Jintao would think kindly toward the US.

I'm going to have to take issue with this. Firstly, "your time is running out" is hardly the threat you are making it out to be. Bush's "time is running out" - because we have term limits. All of our time is running out because we're human beings. It's much like saying that a political leader will lose his next election - well, in a fair election, he certainly could!

Second, letting a protestor go won't hurt relations too badly, I suspect. China has thousands of protests a year, so I would think they could understand one of ours. There won't be WWIII over a single protestor (at least not between US and China). If we never arrested her, she wouldn't be in the media at all - and Hu probably wouldn't ever hear of her.